Summary of Issue: Documents Missing

Decision 61994A Full Text of Decision 61994A

Because the evidence that could have answered the question "did the claimant knowingly make false or misleading statements", no longer exists, the Umpire agrees with the minority decision of the Board of Referees that, for lack of evidence, the claimant should not have to pay the penalty.

Decision A-0083.04 Full Text of Decision A-0083.04

The Commission imposed a penalty against the claimant for failing to report that he was taking a training course. The FCA held that the Umpire had erred in determining that no evidence of false or misleading statements had been adduced. The Court ruled that this evidence, as suggested in Caverly, consisted in the confirmation of the questions asked under the Teledec system, the possible answers to each question, a readout of the Teledec calls that reproduces the claimant's answers, and a statement by a Commission officer that includes those questions and answers.

Decision 59589 Full Text of Decision 59589

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0083.04

Decision A-0420.01 Full Text of Decision A-0420.01

Penalty imposed but reporting cards were not in evidence neither at the BOR nor at the Umpire level. The Court held that both instances erred in fact and in law as there were no evidence proving that the claimant had made false and misleading statements. Without the reporting cards, the Commission must establish what questions were asked of the claimant and what answers he gave that are alleged to be false or misleading. Reference made by the FCA to its decision in the Caverly case (A-0211.01).

Decision A-0211.01 Full Text of Decision A-0211.01

Claimant used the Teledec method of reporting and failed to disclose all of his earnings. A penalty was imposed but the questions answered by claimant via the Teledic system were never in evidence before the BOR or the Umpire. The BOR was simply of the view that the same "five question pattern" was asked on the Teledec system as appears on a reporting card and the Umpire accepted it. The FCA found that the BOR based its decision on a material finding of fact without the necessary evidential underpinning and that the onus of proving the knowing misrepresentation had not been met.

Decision 50303A Full Text of Decision 50303A

See summary indexed under FCA A-0420.01

Decision 26067A Full Text of Decision 26067A

Report cards destroyed due to lapse of time. Statements in Observations, unsupported by the documents on which they are based, do not make proof, nor does reliance on computer records when the report cards on which they are based are missing. They do not provide acceptable proof of allegedly false statements.